The United States Sharia- Really?

[88Comrade2000]

Honestly, I think all this shariafobia is just ignorant people using fear to further their own causes.

Anyone honestly think the Unites States will become a country under Sharia law.

This is Christian dominant country and that will never change.

Coming soon to your home- The United States of Sharia. Resistance is futile.

[Teller]

No, I don't think we'll become the Islamic Republic of the United States. But hey. Why not have enhanced penalties for honor killings, etc? It'd be cool to have hate crime legislation that targets a minority.

[Bang]

Honestly, I think all this shariafobia is just ignorant people using fear to further their own causes.

.

Totally agree.

~Bang

[The 12th Commandment]

I don't think that anyone except Glen Beck has actually proposed it that broadly, but the states getting into it for purely grandstanding reasons is embarrassing.

[Mickalino]

This is Christian dominant country and that will never change. .

It's already changed. How is Christianity "dominating" our government ?

At the very least, their influence on government is eroding.

[JMS]

As a person who has lived under Sharia, I would argue it is potentially a far superior legal system than the one the United States currently employs. I would argue conservatives, all real conservatives would love Sharia Law if it was imposed.

Sure we would execute a lot more innocent people, and sure we increase the overall percent error of in our criminal legal system by say 5-10%.

But you know what we wouldn't have? We wouldn't have an OJ trial lasting for 2-3 years playing out on our national TV system blow by blow until his aquital. OJ would have been picked up on the weekend and his fate would have been decided along with every other criminal in our system in about 3 days. Gone would be the expense of institutionalizing more of our population than any other nation on earth. Gone would be the over crowding of our prisons. Frankly gone would be the rather large population of carreer criminals and habitual offenders who prey upon society....

There are strong negatives to living under Sharia, but their are also very strong positives. It's funny to me the conservatives are complaining about it because to my mind they would favor most of the changes, while it would be liberals like myself who would have the most problems with it.

---------- Post added February-24th-2011 at 01:51 AM ----------

This is Christian dominant country and that will never change.

The founding fathers disagree with you. John Adams submitted the Treaty of Tripoli to the senate in 1796, and it was ratified by the senate in 1797. It directly refutes your claim.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

[baddog]

Rather than going round and round on arguments focused on specific religions, conservatives versus liberals, etc let's boil it down to the true essence:

Ultimately, if you have different legal system for a subset of your population you no longer have "equal treatment under the law." Citizens of the USA have that right. [[No, you don't have to remind me of times past when unequal treatment was institutionalized (segregation, voting rights, etc) However, we as a country recognized that was wrong and have changed the system to remove institutionalized inequality.]]

Two separate legal systems cannot co-exist on equal footing. There must be ONE legal system that ALL people in the US are held accountable to, from visiting foreigners all the way to the President. I have no problems with a muslim population in the US implementing parts of sharia law as long as they do not conflict with the "law of the land." This is how we became the great melting pot in the 19th century... your cultural values and practices are welcome so long as they do not break the law. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the adherents of sharia law accept that their legal code should be subservient to a higher authority, the laws of the US.

[techboy]

The founding fathers disagree with you.

There are very few things certain in life, but one of them is that any sentence that begins with "the founding fathers..." and proceeds to ascribe one monolithic thought or opinion to that group is going to be wrong (including the opposite sentiment that "the founding fathers founded this nation on Christianity").

I have to admit, though, that I'm always surprised when people use the Treaty of Tripoli as part of their argument: diplomacy has always been less about the truth and more about saying what people want to hear, especially when it's just preamble language (of article 11, specifically).

[DRSmith]

So much like Jewish courts and you could have Islamic courts to handle family matter or to act as arbritators in cases where both parties agree to it

[baddog]

So much like Jewish courts and you could have Islamic courts to handle family matter or to act as arbritators in cases where both parties agree to it

IMO- Only as long as the decisions and actions of that court do not conflict with US law. For example, honor killings have no place in the US even if it is acceptable under sharia law.

[SkinsHokieFan]

IMO- Only as long as the decisions and actions of that court do not conflict with US law. For example, honor killings have no place in the US even if it is acceptable under sharia law.

Honor killings are NOT acceptable under Sharia law.

Please actually pick up a copy of "Sharia Law" and read it

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7505660.cms

Look carefully for the religion of the murderers in this article

[Homercles82]

Please don't let this thread devolve into a bunch of quotes from individual founding fathers then declaring that each quote is 100% absolute to all of them. You can pick and choose quotes all day long from each one, and get different results.

[SkinsHokieFan]

There are very few things certain in life, but one of them is that any sentence that begins with "the founding fathers..." and proceeds to ascribe one monolithic thought or opinion to that group is going to be wrong (including the opposite sentiment that "the founding fathers founded this nation on Christianity").

I have to admit, though, that I'm always surprised when people use the Treaty of Tripoli as part of their argument: diplomacy has always been less about the truth and more about saying what people want to hear, especially when it's just preamble language (of article 11, specifically).

Please don't let this thread devolve into a bunch of quotes from individual founding fathers then declaring that each quote is 100% absolute to all of them. You can pick and choose quotes all day long from each one, and get different results.

The thing with the Treaty of Tripoli is many of the signess of that Treaty were the founding fathers. The Senate approved this treaty in 1797. Its one of the first treaties this nation signed, so it certainly reflects their feelings

[Homercles82]

Honor killings are NOT acceptable under Sharia law.

Please actually pick up a copy of "Sharia Law" and read it

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7505660.cms

Look carefully for the religion of the murderers in this article

Though not acceptable, but still practiced in many Middle Eastern countries. According the Councile on Foreign Relations, thousands of honor killings are still performed each year in the Middle East.

http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034#p3

[SkinsHokieFan]

Though not acceptable, but still practiced in many Middle Eastern countries. According the Councile on Foreign Relations, thousands of honor killings are still performed each year in the Middle East.

http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034#p3

I am not disputing that at all.

Murder is not acceptable by western law but thousands occur in the US every year.

Same with rape. As far as I can tell rape is banned, but thousands occur every year and many are not prosecuted

The argument our friend was making is that Muslim law allows this, which is totally untrue

[Homercles82]

I am not disputing that at all.

Murder is not acceptable by western law but thousands occur in the US every year.

The argument our friend was making is that Muslim law allows this, which is totally untrue

Muslim law does allow it but most countries are moving away from using traditional Muslim punishments.

Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge's discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses--flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution--get a significant amount of media attention when they occur. These sentences are not often prescribed, however. "In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments," says Ali Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies in a Voice of America interview. These punishments remain on the books in some countries but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Muslim law does allow it but most countries are moving away from using traditional Muslim punishments.

Not quite. Not honor killings in the way you are describing (family member goes out and kills daughter)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic)

Zina (Arabic: الزنا‎ ) in Islam is extramarital sex and premarital sex. Islamic law prescribes punishments for Muslim men and women for the act of Zina.

Islamic law considers this prohibition to be for the protection of men and women and for the respect of marriage. Zina is considered one of the great sins in Islam[1][2]. In addition to the punishments rendered before death, sinners are punished severely after death, unless purged of their sins by a punishment according to shari'a law[citation needed].

Verses 24-2,3 says: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication flog each of them with 100 stripes." “The adulterer shall not marry save an adultress, and the adultress shall not marry save an adulterer or an idolater All that is forbidden unto believers.” Clearly the punishment is not lethal since the adulterers and adulteresses can marry subsequently.

The most accepted collection of Hadith Sahih al Bukhari has 4 entries under 3829, 8804, 8805 and 8824 which refer to stoning by death. The case under 4829 involved Jews who were stoned to death in accordance with the Law of the Torah (not the Koran). 8805 says: "A married man from the tribe of Bani Aslam who had committed illegal sexual intercourse and bore witnesses four times against himself was ordered by the Prophet (s.a.s.) to be stoned to death". 8804 and 8824 overlap each other. And in both the narrator acknowledges his ignorance of whether the stoning to death was carried out before or after the revelation of Quranic Verse 24-2.

The Hadith is very clear but is silent on the question whether stoning to death was ordered by the Prophet before or after the revelation of the Verse 24-2.

It is well known[citation needed] that the Quran was revealed in stages over 23 years. Until revelation on a specific point was received by the Prophet, he followed the law of Moses or the traditions of Abraham but once a revelation was received, there was no question of his substituting it by his own will or by the law of Moses. In any case, there is no record in Sahih al Bukhari or any other accepted compendium of the traditions of Muhammad of another Rajm (death by stoning) carried out under the command of Muhammad.

Some scholars support 'Rajm' by attributing a statement to the second Caliph Omar that a revelation on the subject had been received but had been lost. It is generally accepted that the Quran was compiled in its present form during the period of the third Caliph Othman. Some scholars maintain that the compilation was already available during the life-time of the Prophet or during the Caliphate of the first Caliph Abu Bakr.

Hence there is an obvious discrepancy and the statement attributed to Caliph Omar needs to be rejected for being prima facie erroneous. And also because it is the firm faith of the Muslims that the Quran includes every word that was revealed by Allah to the Prophet and not a word has been lost or added to the revelation.

"Nor come nigh to adultery for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)." [Qur'an 17:32]

"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication - flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the Believers witness their punishment." [Qur'an 24:2]

"Those who bring the charge of adultery against chaste women but cannot produce four witnesses to prove the charge, give them 80 lashes and their testimony should never be believed." [Qur'an 24:4]

From the Torah

Rabbinic Judaism

Adultery in traditional Judaism applies equally to both parties, but depends on the marital status of the woman (Lev. 20:10). Though the Torah prescribes the death penalty for adultery, the legal procedural requirements were very exacting and required the testimony of two witnesses of good character for conviction. The defendant also must have been warned immediately before performing the act.[38]

At the civil level, however, Jewish law (halakha) forbids a man to continue living with an adulterous wife, and he is obliged to divorce her. Also, an adulteress is not permitted to marry the adulterer, but, to avoid any doubt as to her status as being free to marry another or that of her children, many authorities say he must give her a divorce as if they were married.[39]

Also, Jewish law recognizes the "law of the land" in these matters, so that if the law of the land has greater restrictions, then they will also apply.[citation needed]

According to Judaism, the Seven laws of Noah apply to all of humankind; these laws prohibit adultery with another man's wife.[40

[techboy]

The thing with the Treaty of Tripoli is many of the signess of that Treaty were the founding fathers.

"Many", but not close to all. The Founding Fathers don't seem to have been able to agree on anything without a fight.

It should be a tip-off that they wrote the first 10 ammendments to the Constitution before they even ratified it.

The Senate approved this treaty in 1797. Its one of the first treaties this nation signed, so it certainly reflects their feelings

Right. Because no diplomat has ever said something he didn't mean out of the expediency of getting an agreement made.

I just don't see this as a particularly strong argument, even if the quote itself seems to be a slam dunk.

[SkinsHokieFan]

"Many", but not close to all. The Founding Fathers don't seem to have been able to agree on anything without a fight.

It should be a tip-off that they wrote the first 10 ammendments to the Constitution before they even ratified it.

Right. Because no diplomat has ever said something he didn't mean out of the expediency of getting an agreement made.

I just don't see this as a particularly strong argument, even if the quote itself seems to be a slam dunk.

Surely a young nation, and in particular a young unpredictable Senate would want to check that language before having every single member ratify it before sending it to President Adams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

he Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripoli, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

[Titaw]

This is Christian dominant country and that will never change.

It's thoughts like this that make me think that we are worse off and closer to a religious upheaval. The thought that something will never change means that it is bound to change because there is no perceived fight. It is exactly what Muslims want you to think. Islam has grown exponentially in the past decade and it will continue to grow. Now, I am not saying that will become a country under Sharia any time soon but, I do have a feeling that some counties, cities and even states may be under Sharia law in the next decade.

I do agree to a point that shariaphobia is used as a fear mongering tactic, but there are cities in Michigan that I believe are on the brink to falling under sharia law.

[techboy]

Surely a young nation, and in particular a young unpredictable Senate would want to check that language before having every single member ratify it before sending it to President Adams

Right. Because no governmental body has ever included language in a treaty intended to placate another governmental body, with the goal of securing some greater objective.

Let me be clear: I don't actually think the nation was founded specifically on Christian principles, as I think I made clear in my initial comment. The Founding Fathers were a very diverse group of men, with diverse ideas, and they certainly weren't all Christians, though many were.

Heck, Jefferson took a pair of scissors to the Bible, and came up with his own sanitized version.

I just don't happen to think that pointing to a treaty that was written, in part, to avoid the possibility of a holy war (1), sheds much light on anything other than that they wanted to avoid a holy war, especially since the treaty was a fait a compli by the time it reached Adams and the Senate anyway, so that they probably couldn't have changed it even had they wanted to (2).

From the same Wiki article:

(1)

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."[20]

(2)

The Treaty also had spent seven months traveling from Tripoli to Algiers to Portugal and, finally, to the United States, and had been signed by officials at each stop along the way. Neither Congress nor President Adams would have been able to cancel the terms of the Treaty by the time they first saw it, and there is no record of discussion or debate of the Treaty of Tripoli at the time that it was ratified.

---------- Post added February-24th-2011 at 10:16 AM ----------

Now, I am not saying that will become a country under Sharia any time soon but, I do have a feeling that some counties, cities and even states may be under Sharia law in the next decade.

This seems rather unlikely. Which localities are you talking about, and what specifically do you mean by "falling under Sharia law"?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Funny story:

So, most people on here refer to me as a liberal nut, but I've mentioned how my fiance is a republican before. Well, her parents are further right than her, and her sister and sister's husbands are true libertarians: Ron Paulers, not so much the crazy ones.

Anyway, after Christmas were talking shop and my mother-in-law brings this Shariah law thing up and how dangerous it was. And my response was something like "its ridiculous. people are just trying to scare you. There's nothing to worry about, blah blah blah." I think she expected that from me, but her jaw DROPPED when my libertarian brother in law commented "we have too many damn laws in this country. why can't we just look at the first amendment."

i was laughing, she was pissed, and libertarian guy was like, what'd i do?

[88Comrade2000]

It's thoughts like this that make me think that we are worse off and closer to a religious upheaval. The thought that something will never change means that it is bound to change because there is no perceived fight. It is exactly what Muslims want you to think. Islam has grown exponentially in the past decade and it will continue to grow. Now, I am not saying that will become a country under Sharia any time soon but, I do have a feeling that some counties, cities and even states may be under Sharia law in the next decade.

I do agree to a point that shariaphobia is used as a fear mongering tactic, but there are cities in Michigan that I believe are on the brink to falling under sharia law.

Well, as a Muslim I am stating the obvious fact. The country is made up of citizens where the dominant religion is Christianity and the majority of people are off that faith. I don't see that ever changing.

That isn't what I want you to think. That is simply the facts. There is no way that US law would be superceded by any other law; unless you have a complete liberal takeover the every single judicial seat in the U.S.

I don't see Average JOE every agreeing to live with Sharia law.

[thebluefood]

Totally agree.

~Bang

People have been using straw men to stay in power/push their own agendas since the dawn of time. Need I remind everyone how Ancient Rome viewed Christians for 300 years or the Nazi's treatment of Jews, Gypsies, and other peoples?

This is nothing new; but it doesn't make it any less foolish or ignorant.

[headexplode]

Sure we would execute a lot more innocent people [if Sharia law were imposed], and sure we increase the overall percent error of in our criminal legal system by say 5-10%.

Oh, that's all. Sign me up, then. It'd be worth it to avoid any more "Dancing Itos."